Topological Resilience of Shipping Alliances in Maritime Transportation Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper provides valuable insights into the topological resilience of shipping alliances within maritime transportation networks. To highlight its originality, it should explicitly state how it fills existing gaps in research on resilience analysis of specific alliances within the Global Maritime Container Network (GMCN) and what unique contributions this analysis makes to the field.
It would benefit from incorporating recent literature on resilience in complex networks beyond maritime contexts, such as in logistics or other transportation networks.
The methodology section should include further details on the criteria used for selecting data and filtering network components.
The results need clearer presentation with additional visual aids, such as tables or graphs, to emphasize key findings. Conclusions should tie back more directly to the study’s objectives, demonstrating how the results support the paper’s contributions on network resilience, especially for alliances like Ocean and 2M.
The paper should elaborate on how its findings could impact public policy, influence operational decisions in maritime logistics, and contribute to resilience planning in maritime networks.
The paper should reduce technical jargon where possible and define acronyms upon first use.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsplease see the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a comprehensive analysis of Strategic Alliances (SAs) in the liner shipping industry, focusing on the network topology and robustness of these alliances within the Global Maritime Container Network (GMCN). Based on container vessel schedule data, the authors investigate the complex properties structure of SAs, examining their spatial distribution, connectivity patterns, and centrality metrics. The topic is interesting and meaningful, and some conclusions are drawn. From my perspective, it deserves publication after minor revisions. My concerns are as follows:
(1) Please update the related literature published in recent two years. Additionally, I think the following references are related to this study but have not been cited. Thus, I suggest the authors cite these references and elucidate the differences between this study and these references.
[1] Tagawa, H., Kawasaki, T., & Hanaoka, S. (2022). Evaluation of international maritime network configuration and impact of port cooperation on port hierarchy. Transport Policy, 123, 14-24.
[2] Asadabadi, A., & Miller-Hooks, E. (2020). Maritime port network resiliency and reliability through co-opetition. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 137, 101916.
[3] Lu, B., Sun, Y., Wang, H., Wang, J. J., Liu, S. S., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2024). Dynamic resilience analysis of the liner shipping network: From structure to cooperative mechanism. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 191, 103755.
(2) Most of the conclusions are straightforward and obvious, e.g., “the network exhibits robustness against random failures due to its scale-free topology”; “targeted disruptions could pose significant risks to the SA network functionality, potentially causing cascading breakdowns across the system”… I hope that the authors could find deeper management insights.
(3) There are a few spelling and punctuation errors in the manuscript. For example, in Line 231, “us” should be revised as “is”; in Line 479, the full stop “.” is missing. Hence, I suggest the authors check and revise the text of the whole manuscript carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The introduction provides a solid background and effectively sets the context for the study. Add a brief explanation of how your findings fill the gaps identified in previous literature to strengthen the motivation for the study.
-Explicitly explain the assumptions made during simulations (e.g., uniform vessel scheduling, scale-free properties) and discuss the limitations of excluding temporal dynamics from the analysis. Simplify technical jargon in the methods section for accessibility to a broader audience.
- The results are well-presented and supported by appropriate figures. Ensure all figures and tables are adequately labeled and referenced in the text.
-Expand on the practical implications of your findings, especially concerning policy recommendations for alliance-level decision-making.
-Include examples of how similar resilience strategies have been implemented successfully in other industries or networks.
-Explicitly link the findings to the broader implications for maritime logistics and global trade stability.
-Some sections require refinement to improve readability and coherence. Simplify overly technical terminology, ensure consistent use of abbreviations and terminology throughout the manuscript, and avoid redundancy in descriptions, particularly in the methodological and results sections.
-Specify methodologies for integrating real-time analytics or pandemic-related changes to provide a clearer roadmap for subsequent studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have clarified my concerns in the previous report properly in this revision and thus it is my recommendation for acceptance.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and the advice.
